Awara Study on Real GDP Growth Net-of-Debt

This groundbreaking study by Awara reveals that the real, debt-adjusted, GDP growth of Western countries has been in negative territory for years. Only by massively loading up debt have they been able to hide the true picture and delay the onset of an inevitable collapse of their respective economies. The study shows that the real GDP of those countries hides hefty losses after netting the debt figures, which gives the Real-GDP-net-of-debt.

The moral of the study is that it is that GDP growth figures as such reveal very little about the underlying dynamics of an economy if one does not simultaneously attempt to analyze what part of the growth is credited to simply artificially fueling the economy with new loans.

The idea behind this study is to reveal real GDP growth after accounting for the effect of fueling the national economy with new public debt (general government debt). As of now, it is already a fundamentally accepted practice to adjust the GDP to the effects of inflation, the result of which is given as the ‘real GDP growth’. With this in mind, it is only natural to also apply the method presented here, of adjusting GDP growth to take into account the effect of new debt, which yields the ‘real-GDP-growth-net-of-debt’. We consider this to be a groundbreaking study, as we are not aware of economists having ever attempted this before. Neither have we heard that this problem has been discussed among scholars and analysts. Naturally, the debt problem is widely discussed, but here we refer to the idea of netting the GDP by deducting the debt effect.

The Western countries have lost the capacity to grow their economies. All they have left is a capacity to pile up debts. By massively accumulating new debt, they are able to keep up a semblance of at least sluggish growth, or of hovering around the zero growth mark.

If this massive debt would go towards investments, then there would be nothing wrong with it. But, it is not. The debt is going towards financing the losses in the national economies and essentially it all is wasted on consumption that the countries in reality cannot afford. The Western countries act like a 19th century heir to aristocratic wealth, borrowing from year to year to keep up the former lifestyle, while the estate is relentlessly dwindling. Sooner or later the prodigal heir would be forced to face reality and sell the remaining property to stave off the creditors, downgrade his dwellings, and rein in spending. Inevitably, the European countries and the USA will have to curb their excessive consumption, too, but for the time being they are putting off the final reckoning with new debt rather the way a drunkard reaches for the morning after drink to put off sobering up. In the case of the EU and the USA, we are speaking about a debt binge that has been going on for a decade.

While the situation has been generally bad for the last decade or so, it took a dramatic turn for the worse, or should we say for the catastrophic, following the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008. The shocking figures depicting the virtual crippling of the Western economies from 2009 to 2013 are illustrated in Chart 1. It shows the real GDP growth net-of-debt after deducting the growth of public debt from the GDP figure. Net of debt we see the scale of destruction of the Spanish economy, which amounts to the staggering figure of minus 56.3%. This while the conventional official method of crediting GDP growth with growth of debt would give only minus 6.7%. The corresponding figures for the Eurozone in total are -27.2% for the debt adjusted GDP and -0.2% according to the official method. Even Germany’s true economic health comes out surprisingly dire in this analysis, with a GDP growth net-of-debt of -16.6% versus an official GDP growth of -0.7%. The figures of those debt-ridden Western countries are compared with that of financially prudent Russia. They show that in the same period Russia has been able to generate real GDP growth net-of-debt in the amount of 28.5% with an official GDP growth figure of 5.7%.

Chart 2 depicts the development of real-GDP-growth per country in years 2005 to 2013. The chart shows that during this period Russia has been able to deliver real non-debt fueled GDP growth, whereas the Western countries are running huge deficits. The accumulated growth of the Russian economy from 2005 to 2013 was 147% while the Western countries accumulated losses from 16.5% (Germany) to 58% (USA). In the case of Russia, the real-GDP-net-of-debt figure is also corrected to adjust for the calculation error caused by an erroneous GDP deflator that Russian Statistics Agency (Rosstat) has used. We have discussed the persistent problem of Russia’s GDP growth having been underestimated due to the use of a wrong GDP deflator in the study Awara Research on the Effects of Putin’s Tax Reforms 2000-2012 on State Tax Revenue and GDP:

The difference between the real debt-free GDP development of Russia, USA and Eurozone is best illustrated by Chart 3.

Chart 4 shows how much the accumulation of debt in the Western countries exceeds the official GDP growth. The USA is leading the pack with an increase in the debt load in years 2004 to 2013 of USD 9.8 trillion (in the chart in euros, EUR 7 trillion). In those years, the growth of the USA public debt exceeded the GDP growth 5 times (500%), which is illustrated by Chart 5, comparing the proportion of growth of debt to that of growth of GDP.

The comparison of growth of debt to growth of GDP reveals the UK, as the country that has amassed the most amount of new debt relative to GDP growth, having a new-debt-to-GDP-growth ratio of 9 to 1; in other words UK has taken on 900% new debt relative to the GDP growth. But the picture is grim for all the Western countries surveyed, less so for Germany, while Russia’s debt increase amounts to only a fraction of the GDP growth.

The analysis shows that by these measures Russian economic growth, unlike that of the Western countries, has been comparatively healthy and not debt-driven. Russia has in fact a resoundingly positive ratio by these measures, where GDP growth has exceeded growth of debt by a staggering 14 times (1400%). The figure is astonishing when compared with the Western countries that have been flooded with new debt.

The situation looks bad also for the smaller EU countries like Finland. Even though Finland enjoys a reputation of being financially more sound than most EU countries, it is actually faring quite badly. Finland’s favorable reputation was earned in the years before 2008, but after the financial crisis that started in that year Finnish government spending has gotten totally out of hand. In the five years since the onset of the crisis, Finland has added on average 10 billion euro of debt each year or a total of some 50 billion in as many years(Chart 6). The proportion of growth of debt to growth of GDP has been 600% in the same period (Chart 7). This has yielded a dismal accumulated real-GDP-net-of-debt of -30.5% between 2009 and 2013 (Chart 8)

The above figures are adjusted taking into account public debt (general government debt), but the situation is even worse when we consider the effect of private debt on the GDP. New debt of corporations and households have at least doubled private debt of most of the Western countries since year 1996 (Chart 9). The dynamics of growth of household debt followed the same path but seems to have levelled of in most countries in recent years as the debt seems to have reached the limits of the possibly tenable (Chart 10).

We have not included Japan and China in the analysis due to the difficulties attributed to finding consistent data for all the input variables. For those countries we have come across problems of fractured data that do not capture all the relevant years; inconsistent data across the samples we looked at; and uncertainties about conversion of the input data into euros. (We are sure that major research houses could overcome such problems, having greater and more sophisticated resources than ours). This exclusion of Japan and China is regrettable as Japan is the country worst affected by the problem of debt-fueled GDP growth, having a public debt to GDP ratio of well above 200%, and would therefore have been very instructive for our purposes.

Japan has been essentially living on debt since the early 1990’s. However, some of the more irrational Western analysts want to take Japan as a prime example to follow, arguing that since Japan has been able to pile up debt for some 25 years now, all the Western countries would be able to do it as well for the foreseeable future. In this they fail to grasp that Japan earlier had the luxury of being the sole country living on such exorbitant levels of debt. Japan has enjoyed great support from the Western countries to be able to continue that practice, not least for political reasons. Another important consideration against the idea that Western countries could continue to accumulate debt is that they have, since the early 1990’s, rapidly lost their economic hegemony in terms of share of world trade and global GDP. I have written about this in a recent article entitled Why the West is Destined to Decline.

Reviewing these figures, it becomes evident that in reality Western economies have not grown in the past decade, rather the countries have massively inflated their debt load. With these levels of debt reached this cannot continue for long. There is a real risk that the bluff will be called sooner rather than later dropping the Western economies to GDP levels that they can carry without debt leverage. But in that situation they will not be able to serve the accumulated debts leading to catastrophe scenarios.

The West is fast shrinking in economic significance relative to the rest of the world. This is demonstrated by comparing the GDP of the Western powers as represented by the G7 countries (USA, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy and Canada) with the GDP of emerging powers. As recently as 1990, the combined GDP of the G7 was overwhelming in relation to that of today’s 7 emerging powers: China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea (not necessarily constituting one political block). In 1990, the G7 countries had a combined GDP of USD 14.4 trillion and the emerging 7 had a GDP of USD 2.3, but by 2013 the tables had been turned, as the G7 had USD 32 trillion and the emerging 7 had USD 35 trillion. (Chart 11).

Chart 11. Share of global GDP G7 and Emerging 7

With the challenge of the ever increasing share of world economy belonging to the emerging countries, it becomes clear that the Western countries will not be able to profit sufficiently from world trade to service their debt loads.

For the time being the Western countries benefit from the privilege of having currencies that the rest of the world still largely trusts as reserve currencies. In essence, the USD and the euro enjoy a kind of monopoly status. This is what allows Western countries to gain access to cheap debt and fuel their economies with central bank financing (quantitative easing or “printing of money”). But the risk is that, with the deteriorating debt situation and diminishing share of the global economy, they will forfeit this privilege, perhaps even in the near future. What would follow from this is sharply more expensive financing and inflation, with hyperinflation as the eventual outcome. In this scenario – which I consider inevitable over the next 5 to 10 years – the economies of Western countries would essentially collapse.

The problem is that there is no way of averting this scenario, because the Western powers have lost their competitive advantages as economic powers. Eventually, their economies must shrink to match their resource and population bases. (I have written about this in the article referred to above). But it seems that the ruling Western elites have no intention of facing up to these realities. They will try to keep up a semblance of prosperity with ever new debt, as long as they can. The political parties of the West have been essentially converted into voting machines with one singular concern – that of winning the next elections. To do that they will continue to engage in what amounts to bribing of the electorate – creating new debt that fuels the national economy.

But there is no way to turn back this historical tide. Just as the aristocrat of the old regime eventually squandered his legacy, so will the Western powers.

About sources and the method

The input data has been figures of ‘real GDP growth’, figures of size of GDP of a given country, and the development of public debt over the years.

The input data has been cross-referenced to various sources and adjusted where needed.

The input data on Russia and the USA were initially denominated in USD and were therefore converted to euro according to the currency exchange rate on the last day of each year. The data on UK were originally given in euro (Eurostat). For these countries the fluctuation of currency rates yield considerable changes over the years which would be evened out if the reporting currency was the national currency of the country.

For Russia, we calculated GDP growth by using the US GDP deflator. This is because we consider it a significant flaw in the conventional method to adjust Russian GDP with a Russian ruble GDP deflator when the GDP is reported in USD. In the case of Russia, the real-GDP-net-of-debt figure is also corrected to adjust for the calculation error caused by the erroneous GDP deflator that Russian Statistics Agency (Rosstat) has used. We have discussed the persistent problem of Russia’s GDP growth having been underestimated due to use of a wrong GDP deflator in the study Awara Research on the Effects of Putin’s Tax Reforms 2000-2012 on State Tax Revenue and GDP:

We have not included Japan and China in the analysis due to the difficulties attributed to finding consistent data for all the input variables. For those countries we have come across problems of fractured data that do not capture all the relevant years; inconsistent data across the samples we looked at; and uncertainties about conversion of the input data into euros.

About Awara:

Awara is the leading foreign owned business administration services provider on the Russian market, serving international and local organizations and individual entrepreneurs. Our services comprise a wide array of advisory for strategic business development, establishment and investment, and the implementation and execution of our advice; covering all areas of:

Comments on Awara Study on Real GDP Growth Net-of-Debt

Krzysztof

“It shows the real GDP growth net-of-debt after deducting the growth of public debt from the GDP figure. ”

My questions are simple: 1. When introducing the “Real GDP-growth net-of-debt”, did you substract the absolute figures (GDP growth – public debt growth) or the percentages? Judging from your results, seems that you chose the simpler, more spectacular way to take the percentages. This “method” has one drawback: it says NOTHING, i.e. the result might be spectacular and breathtaking, but is completely arithmetically irrelevant.

2. Even if taking the absolute figures, what sense does it make to substract one amount (public debt growth) from the other (GDP growth)?

3. It would be highly interesting to investigate the Russian figures from post-2014 period, even when using the methodology proposed above. This spectacular number of 147% would definitely not be hold, especially when taking into account that this level of repayment cannot be sustainable. This leads me to the conclusion, that not the yearly growth of debt is relevant but the level of indebtment itself (which should to tell the truth, raise concerns for Western economies). Of course, this level cannot be put into any arithmetical relation to the GDP growth either.

4. When we speak about debt, we should also be aware of the other side, i.e. the receivables. Any figures about that?

5. Did you use the same deflator for calculating the growth of debt, which was used for the GDP growth?

To sum up, this paper was probably made just to show some figures according to which one economy is doing great whereas the performance of the others is mediocre. These figures were obtained by a calculating a simple index: which is, spectacular, but of little significance.

magicmetal

In my opinion, everything described in research is obvious result of transfer of assets from citizens and the states in the capitals of corporations. Citizens and the states inevitably climb in debts.

The western corporations mainly private and transnational – assets run away from the state. The USA tries to fight against it expanding the jurisdiction (e.g. FATCA) and fight against the uncontrollable offshore (the Panama scandal, there it seems the trace of CIA was dug out).

In Russia the role of the state corporations much bigger, therefore process doesn’t lead to growth of a national debt (assets from one pocket are shifted in another, but citizens grow poor). The next, as a source of the redistributed values Russia uses not a debt, but a natural rent. And I can’t see nothing especially positive in this fact.

Eric Zuesse

Please recalculate so as to include not only government debt but private debt. Then it’ll be far more meaningful.

Jon Hellevig

I also agree very much that it would be preferable to have the total market debt versus only the government debt. I, in fact, intended to do it, but unfortunately I could not find reliable figures across the countries. I am afraid that our house do not have the sufficient resources to cope with all the demands. I expressed my wish that the lead would be taken up by some of the bigger research institutes.

Eric Zuesse

Jon, this is very interesting, if the figures on the basis of which you calculated these results are authentic. Where can I find the figures, and check their sources?

Eric, in addition what was said in previous comment (here below), I wanted to yet Point out this about Russia. The development of Russian GDP in USD terms can be seen from several sources readily available on the internet, for example, World Bank database. Here is one link that gives the figures in a snapshot http://kushnirs.org/macroeconomics/gdp/gdp_russia.html#main The GDP growth has been deduced from these by calculating the annual difference from year to year. To eliminate the inflation effect the USD GDP-deflator has been applied (this is a novelty, not to use the RUR but USD deflator, as the figures anyway are in USD). The previous gives the GDP growth. The growth of public debt I have from Russian Statistics Agency, but it will be easy for you to google that the size of Russia’s public debt indeed is very low. This link shows it in comparison with other countries.

awanderer

Jon, my point is that the way Russia is now integrated in the world economy (as a supplier of resources and importer of goods and technologies) is benefiting only few people in the country, those with power to control exploitation and export of natural resources. The rest of the Russian population is getting a raw deal. I brought up Sukhoi example because that project is a loss making one and will probably never break even. In the modern world, anyone can make an aircraft or a car, but succeeding in the marketplace and getting profit is a totally different matter. Russian growth numbers may look nice (or they looked nice), but is this setup equitable or stable in the long run? My answer is no, but only future will tell.

Misheel

Sir You’re brain had been filled by lots of Nonsense from MSM bullshit’s. I propose you clear your head and Look at Russia From Different POV and make your own non bias opinion

awanderer

Sadly, my opinion largely comes from the first-hand experience – I have been born in the country and spent more than 20 years there. I still visit it fairly often and know a lot of people there. Numbers can be sliced in many different ways, but they do not tell the whole story. BTW, the Russian Empire’s numbers also looked good, all the way until the end.

Jon Hellevig

Whom do you think you can fool? I live in Russia and have lived here since 1992. I know exactly well that under the leadership of Putin the economic growth has immensely benefited all categories of Russian people, raising the general living standards more than it has ever happened in any other country through history. – I think it is not fruitful to continue this discussion because you are just talking utter nonsense

awanderer

Jon, what you are basically proposing is for Russia to assume a role similar to those of Arab states. However, as you correctly state only 2-3% of the populatoin actually work in the energy sector. What should the other 100m people do? Live on distributions? No big state can live off its resource wealth, a point that has been proven many times already. Infinite corruption and social unrest is the only outcome of this setup, especially in Russia. Developments in various industries that you mention (auto, airports, high-speed trains, highways) are only possible with imported technology (i.e. in exchange for currency earned by selling resources). I am yet to meet a Russian with a preference for a Russian-designed car, or in fact any product (high- or low-tech) except food. Even oil and gas extraction is highly dependent on the Western technology. As for the nuclear, space and arms industries, where the backlogs of Soviet developments are now coming to an end, just talk to anyone with the knowledge of what is actually going on there. Sukhoi Superjet civil aircraft project, that ended up being built mostly of the imported components is a good example. Russia continues to sell arms mostly built on Soviet technologies, but are they competitive? Even traditional customers like India now say that the quality is way too low. Any country that can afford and is allowed to buy better weapons is doing so. A strong and prosperous independent state cannot be built on selling resources. Those without the know-how and knowledge will always be poor and at a mercy of their corrupt leaders.

Jon Hellevig

What I am saying is that you are quite seriously wrong in your analysis. I am saying that Russian economy is developing very nicely and it is on completely right track and speed. All development started from early 2000’s and now already Russia has come so far. It is utter nonsense to tell that there would be something wrong in Russia being integrated to the world economy by pointing out that the Sukhoi Superjet development has made used of foreign supplies and technologies. It is just what Russia should do. And Russia has been so successful in doing so that the Western powers are now afraid of Russia and wants to hamper its development. But it is too late now, Russia can work with the rest of the world, the growing part, if the West wants to make collective suicide. – And one thing is for sure, the Russian weapons are appreciated precisely for their quality.

Borgþór Jónsson

awanderer I think you are a little bit wrong about this The Russian economy is not nearly as dependant on oil as the Arab countries. Oil is just about 16% of Russias GDP. Even Norway is in more trouble than Russia when comes to that,let alone the Arab states and Venezuela. What will happen in Russia is that the exporting companies will bloom ,but the companies with domestic market will be forced to modernize. That will take time and some will die and other will be born ,but that is what will happen. My guess is that it will take 3-4 years. You have to keep in mind that Russia has lot of well educated people and long tradition in manufacturing.

Jon Hellevig

I don’t understand what is this fixation with a supposed need of Russia to produce consumer goods. Why should Russia reorient it towards it? Of course, it should not. And why should Russia not invest in the energy sector where it has a natural competitive advantage? The idea is promoted by the lunatic opposition and Western media solely for the purpose of undermining pride in Russia’s achievements. Unemployment in Russia stands at 4.8% which is by far much lower than in all the Western economies, and only some 2%, maximum 3%, of the population work in the energy sector. Then what is this nonsense about Russia supposedly not doing anything else! Russia has very successfully renewed and developed the automotive industry, same for aviation, great leaps made in pharma. Even investments in tourism, most notably in Sochi (but you don’t like that either, I guess). New airport terminals are sprouting up all over the country, massive investments have been done and announced in transport infrastructure, ports, highways, high-speed trains… The agriculture and food industries have also emerged in an astonishing way. Now Russia counts among world’s biggest exporters of wheat. And what about self-sufficiency in food products? Ban of imports from West where announced overnight but no shortages occurred. And Russia continues to be strong in space and nuclear energy and most importantly arms. Much more going on and being developed. Then why on earth should that be thrown of way and Russians start sewing their own jeans and making cooking ware?

Awanderer

So what have we learned? All developed countries are doing badly, only Russia is doing well. What gets lost behind the smoke and mirrors of all this statistics, is that the health of the economy depends on competitive products and services, not paper money that could be printed or taken away at will. Now, the mentioned developed countries produce the products for which the entire world is craving for, while Russian resource-driven economy produces none, and is doomed to continue in its boom to bust cycle (the cycle that those doomed developed countries actually drive).

Victor Levitsky

Dear Jon, thank you for this very interesting analysis. Your conclusions bear, in my eyes, a close resemblance to the model of the on-going debt crisis proposed many years ago by Michail Hazin. He also suggests that a large proportion of Western economies are artificailly inflated by debt and will inevitably contruct as the amount of available credit shrinks. What is your view on his model and its relation to your analysis?

Jon Hellevig

Dear Victor, I absolutely agree with the idea you speak about. An additional aspect of it is that the debt is in itself artificially created to great extent by central bank financing (Fed, ECB). And that is solely possible because those central banks enjoy a virtual monopoly to print money. But the same facts that I bring up in the study will lead to them losing that benefit, and then the system will just crash.

Jon Hellevig

Thank you Anatoly for your reply. However, I would disagree with that contention. I don’t see that the source of the debt would make any difference in this context. The phenomenon explored here is how illusory wealth is being produced by fueling the national economy with debt. I note that it is not the debt that is added to the GDP figure but the effects of it makes it rounds through the economy, and if that debt stopped coming – which inevitably will happen – then the GDP would be so much less. In my mind the question of the source or rather currency of the debt is of importance only in regards to the question of possible devaluation. In a case of devaluation the country with its debt overwhelmingly in the national currency would reduce the debt. This is something USA could take advantage of but in doing so they would risk destroying the dollars global appeal as reserve currency, so it would not be straightforward there either. In this connection should be noted that US debt is in USD, but the source of the debt is to a large extent foreign.

Borgþór Jónsson

There is something wrong withe the cakes comparing the G7 GDP to the Emerging 7. G7 cant be less than the next seven economies.

Anatoly Panov

I would make a distinction between domestically-held and foreign-held public debt. The former only involves reallocation of assets and liabilities within the economy and therefore should be GDP-neutral. It means that the balance of payments must feature prominently in any such calculus.

Subscribe to our updates!

Please leave this field empty. Your EmailI agree to the Privacy Policy